Email this article to a friend

Tele-goofing off?

This column was originally published on Jeff Neal's blog, ChiefHRO.com, and was
republished here with
permission
from the author.

Courtesy of Jeff Neal

I read an interesting article on
telework in
Government Executive last week. The headline asked "Is This the Right Time for the
White House to Promote
Working from Home?" Reporter Kellie Lunney's article highlighted OPM Director
Katherine Archuleta's Aug. 22
memorandum to agency heads on expansion of workplace
flexibilities and work-life
programs. The question regarding timing is certainly legitimate.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is in the midst of a scandal
regarding its telework
program. The USPTO issues are representative in type (but probably not scope) of
those other agencies are
experiencing.

Those issues — tele-goofing off rather than working, inability to accurately
measure productivity and
management unwillingness to deal effectively with performance and conduct issues
—
put workplace
flexibilities at risk. They can damage the reputation of the federal workforce,
and they provide fodder to
those who believe federal employees are doing too little work for too much pay.

Telework and other workplace flexibilities are a good thing for government and the
private sector. They allow
organizations to dramatically reduce their office footprint and reduce costs. They
take traffic off the roads
and reduce congestion. They allow employees to reclaim their commuting time and
use it for personal
pursuits.

In a labor market where telework is commonplace, having effective
telework programs allows
employers to compete for talent. They allow employers to remain open during
weather emergencies because
their workforce can continue working from their home offices.

Telework has its detractors too. They claim it is
too hard to monitor performance when people work from home. They say some
employees use telework as a
substitute for child care and are not productive at home. They believe telework
interferes with team dynamics
and makes working as a cohesive team much more difficult.

There is some truth to all of the complaints and
praises of telework, but the fact is telework is expanding and will continue to
expand.

Rather than attempting to reverse telework programs, we should be working on
fixing the problems. Nothing
I have experienced, heard from people currently in government, or read tells me
telework and other
workplace flexibilities should be killed. That toothpaste is out of the tube.

Government should take steps to
improve accountability and make the programs work. I know they can. Some of the
agencies where I worked
handle telework effectively.

My current employer, ICF International, uses telework extensively. Our workforce
is responsible and incidents of abuse are rare. We are able to assess employee
productivity and know when
problems are developing. We are not alone. Others in industry and in government
manage these programs
well.

Some of the problems with telework are also problems when employees are working
from their employer's building. I remember a discussion with a colleague who was
an Army Major General. He opposed telework and refused to allow it in his
organization. When I asked why, he said "I need to know people are working, and
when I want to speak with someone, they need to be here."

So I asked, "Do you know
who is working on the other side of your office wall? If you leave your private
office and walk back to where the dozens of cubicles are, will you know who is
working? When you want to speak with someone, do you summon them? Walk back to
their cubicle? Or do you send an email or pick up the phone?"

He agreed that he
didn't know if everyone was working at that time and if he wanted to speak with
someone he would call them.

Short of walking around all day and looking in all of the cubicles, managers
cannot know who is working simply by proximity. They need measures of performance
and productivity. Good measures work whether the employee is in a federal office
building or working from home.

The most critical key to effective telework
programs is good productivity and performance measures. Without them, telework is
less effective. However, without them, working in an office — any office
— is less
effective.

Plans to implement telework often focus on some of the obvious needs —
technology,
agreements with the union, processes for requesting and approving it, and the
adequacy of a home workspace.

Performance is usually part of the discussion, but
detailed performance and productivity measures are not always part of that
discussion. They must be if telework is to be effective.

Managers should have a
discussion with each teleworker before the first day of working from home to
explain what is expected, hours they are expected to work and any flexibility of
hours that is allowed, how their productivity will be measured and what good
performance looks like.

Notice the difference between telework and working in the
office? No? That is because there is no difference. Other than those things that
are specifically caused by working remotely, such as the need for access to
systems from home, there is no real difference between telework and office work.

The one problem that can be a deal killer for telework is trust. If an employee
cannot be trusted to work independently, s/he cannot be trusted to telework. S/he
also cannot be trusted to sit in a cubicle in the office and work. The only real
difference in those cases is that there are coworkers around and they may report
the person for goofing off.

If we address the issues of measures and trust, there is no reason why telework
should not be expanded. If the issues are not addressed and support for telework
begins to wane, the government may find itself with one more recruiting challenge
(on top of fed-bashing, pay freezes, and furloughs) — the lack of a
perceived
benefit that is offered by most people who are competing for the same talent. We
already have enough challenges in recruiting
young people for government.

"Jeff Neal is a senior vice president for ICF International and founder of the
blog, ChiefHRO.com. Before coming to ICF,
Neal was the chief
human capital officer at the Department of Homeland Security and the chief human
resources officer at the
Defense Logistics Agency."